You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> on 2016/03/06 10:21:05 UTC
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties. Can
you please respond in ticket?
--Yakov
2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
> myself.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>> release.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same
>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed
>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held.
>> The
>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue can
>> be
>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently
>> > works.
>> >
>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>> first
>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led to
>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please re-test
>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>> done
>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com>.
Ah, I realise now that this FAQ you are talking about is probably more of a dev one where as the one I’ve created is more product focused.
Christos
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:20, Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
>
> Please feel free to add to it.
>
> Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
>
> Christos
>
>> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on FAQ
>>
>> Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogradov@gridgain.com <ma...@gridgain.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> I've answered.
>>> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
>>> things.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>>>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>>>> myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Vladisav
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>>>> held. The
>>>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>>>> re-test
>>>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
I've populated FAQ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/FAQ
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
> christos@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
> >
> > Please feel free to add to it.
> >
>
> Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias):
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq
>
> I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done.
>
>
> > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
> >
>
> I don’t think we need to.
>
>
> >
> > Christos
> >
> > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 on FAQ
> > >
> > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yakov,
> > >>
> > >> I've answered.
> > >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish
> same
> > >> things.
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >>>
> > >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding
> optimized-classnames.properties.
> > >>> Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --Yakov
> > >>>
> > >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> > to
> > >>>> myself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --Yakov
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>>>> release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Vladisav
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > >>>>> same
> > >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > >>>>> changed
> > >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > >>>>> held. The
> > >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
> issue
> > >>>>> can be
> > >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > >>>>> currently
> > >>>>>> works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> > my
> > >>>>> first
> > >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> > led
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>>>> re-test
> > >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>>>> done
> > >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
I've populated FAQ
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/IGNITE/FAQ
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
> christos@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> > We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <
> > http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
> >
> > Please feel free to add to it.
> >
>
> Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias):
> https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq
>
> I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done.
>
>
> > Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
> >
>
> I don’t think we need to.
>
>
> >
> > Christos
> >
> > > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 on FAQ
> > >
> > > Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> > avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yakov,
> > >>
> > >> I've answered.
> > >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish
> same
> > >> things.
> > >>
> > >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >>>
> > >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding
> optimized-classnames.properties.
> > >>> Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --Yakov
> > >>>
> > >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> > to
> > >>>> myself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --Yakov
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>>>> release.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>> Vladisav
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Folks,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > >>>>> same
> > >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > >>>>> changed
> > >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > >>>>> held. The
> > >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
> issue
> > >>>>> can be
> > >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > >>>>> currently
> > >>>>>> works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> > my
> > >>>>> first
> > >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> > led
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>>>> re-test
> > >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>>>> done
> > >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
christos@gridgain.com> wrote:
> We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
>
> Please feel free to add to it.
>
Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias):
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq
I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done.
> Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
>
I don’t think we need to.
>
> Christos
>
> > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on FAQ
> >
> > Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yakov,
> >>
> >> I've answered.
> >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
> >> things.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >>>
> >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >>>
> >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> >>> Can you please respond in ticket?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --Yakov
> >>>
> >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> >>>> myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Yakov
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Vladisav
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> >>>>> changed
> >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> >>>>> held. The
> >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> >>>>> can be
> >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> >>>>> currently
> >>>>>> works.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> >>>>> first
> >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> >>>>> re-test
> >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> structures?
> >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
> >>>>> done
> >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Christos Erotocritou <
christos@gridgain.com> wrote:
> We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
>
> Please feel free to add to it.
>
Thanks Christos! Here is the correct link (your link is just an alias):
https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/faq
I think we should add a TOC up top as well, whenever you are done.
> Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
>
I don’t think we need to.
>
> Christos
>
> > On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on FAQ
> >
> > Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
> >
> > D.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <
> avinogradov@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Yakov,
> >>
> >> I've answered.
> >> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
> >> things.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >>>
> >>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >>>
> >>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> >>> Can you please respond in ticket?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --Yakov
> >>>
> >>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> >>>> myself.
> >>>>
> >>>> --Yakov
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> >>>>> release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Best regards,
> >>>>> Vladisav
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Folks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> >>>>> same
> >>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> >>>>> changed
> >>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> >>>>> held. The
> >>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> >>>>> can be
> >>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> >>>>> currently
> >>>>>> works.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> >>>>> first
> >>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> >>>>> to
> >>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> >>>>> re-test
> >>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> structures?
> >>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
> >>>>> done
> >>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com>.
Ah, I realise now that this FAQ you are talking about is probably more of a dev one where as the one I’ve created is more product focused.
Christos
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 18:20, Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com> wrote:
>
> We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
> http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
>
> Please feel free to add to it.
>
> Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
>
> Christos
>
>> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 on FAQ
>>
>> Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
>>
>> D.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <avinogradov@gridgain.com <ma...@gridgain.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> I've answered.
>>> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
>>> things.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>>>
>>>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>>>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>>>> myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> --Yakov
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Vladisav
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>>>> changed
>>>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>>>> held. The
>>>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>>>> first
>>>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>>>> re-test
>>>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>>>> done
>>>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com>.
We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
Please feel free to add to it.
Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
Christos
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 on FAQ
>
> Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> I've answered.
>> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
>> things.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>>
>>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>>
>>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>>
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>>> myself.
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Vladisav
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>>> same
>>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>>> changed
>>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>>> held. The
>>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>>> can be
>>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>>> currently
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>>> first
>>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>>> re-test
>>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>>> done
>>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Christos Erotocritou <ch...@gridgain.com>.
We already have a basic FAQ page which I am populating:
http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq <http://apacheignite.gridgain.org/docs/faq>
Please feel free to add to it.
Not sure if we want to migrate this to the wiki?
Christos
> On 11 Mar 2016, at 17:35, Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1 on FAQ
>
> Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
>
> D.
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> I've answered.
>> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
>> things.
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>>
>>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>>
>>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>>
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>>> myself.
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Vladisav
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>>> same
>>>>>> semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>>> changed
>>>>>> while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>>> held. The
>>>>>> restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>>> can be
>>>>>> fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>>> currently
>>>>>> works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>>> first
>>>>>> guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>>> to
>>>>>> the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>>> re-test
>>>>>> your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>>>> From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>>> done
>>>>>> with IGNITE-2610.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
+1 on FAQ
Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
D.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I've answered.
> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
> things.
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>
>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>
>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Vladisav
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Folks,
>>>> >
>>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>> same
>>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>> changed
>>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>> held. The
>>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>> can be
>>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>> currently
>>>> > works.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>> first
>>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>> to
>>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>> re-test
>>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>> done
>>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@apache.org>.
+1 on FAQ
Can we just create a page, and start populating it?
D.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I've answered.
> Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
> things.
>
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>
>> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>
>> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
>> Can you please respond in ticket?
>>
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>
>>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>>> myself.
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Vladisav
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Folks,
>>>> >
>>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
>>>> same
>>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>>>> changed
>>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>>>> held. The
>>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>>> can be
>>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>>>> currently
>>>> > works.
>>>> >
>>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>>> first
>>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>>> to
>>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>>> re-test
>>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>>> done
>>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
Yakov,
I've answered.
Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
things.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>
> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>
> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> Can you please respond in ticket?
>
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>> myself.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Folks,
>>> >
>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same
>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed
>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held.
>>> The
>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>> can be
>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently
>>> > works.
>>> >
>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>> first
>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>> to
>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>> re-test
>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>> done
>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
Yakov,
I've answered.
Seems we have to have special FAQ section at Ignite wiki to publish same
things.
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:21 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>
> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>
> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> Can you please respond in ticket?
>
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>> myself.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Folks,
>>> >
>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same
>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed
>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held.
>>> The
>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>> can be
>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently
>>> > works.
>>> >
>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>> first
>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>> to
>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>> re-test
>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>> done
>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad and All!
I have reviewed and merged ignite-642 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-642 Implement
IgniteReentrantLock data structure) to master. I will send separate email
to user- and dev-list on this.
--Yakov
2016-04-27 13:07 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad, not yet, unfortunately. I will try to do today.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-27 11:40 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yakov,
>> >
>> > I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
>> > serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
>> > IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
>> > Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yakov,
>> >>
>> >> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I
>> have
>> >> one question.
>> >> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Vladisav
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and
>> provide
>> >>>> comments?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --Yakov
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> > changes.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --Yakov
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> Guys,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Couple of questions:
>> >>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown
>> (e.g. if
>> >>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
>> >>>> OOME in
>> >>>> >> any case.
>> >>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> >>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>> >>>> around
>> >>>> >> in
>> >>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> >>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, not yet, unfortunately. I will try to do today.
--Yakov
2016-04-27 11:40 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Yakov,
>
> did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yakov,
> >
> > I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
> > serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
> > IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
> > Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> vladisavj@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Yakov,
> >>
> >> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
> >> one question.
> >> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Vladisav
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> vladisavj@gmail.com
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and
> provide
> >>>> comments?
> >>>>
> >>>> --Yakov
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
> >>>> the
> >>>> > changes.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --Yakov
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Guys,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Couple of questions:
> >>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g.
> if
> >>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
> >>>> OOME in
> >>>> >> any case.
> >>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> >>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
> >>>> around
> >>>> >> in
> >>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> >>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
> serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
> IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
> Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
>> one question.
>> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>>>> comments?
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
>>>> the
>>>> > changes.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Yakov
>>>> >
>>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Guys,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Couple of questions:
>>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
>>>> OOME in
>>>> >> any case.
>>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>>>> around
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
> one question.
> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>
> Thanks!
> Vladisav
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>>
>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>>> comments?
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
>>> > changes.
>>> >
>>> > --Yakov
>>> >
>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> Guys,
>>> >>
>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>> >>
>>> >> Couple of questions:
>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME
>>> in
>>> >> any case.
>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>>> around
>>> >> in
>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
one question.
Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
Thanks!
Vladisav
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>
>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>> comments?
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > --Yakov
>> >
>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >
>> >> Guys,
>> >>
>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>> >>
>> >> Couple of questions:
>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME
>> in
>> >> any case.
>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>> around
>> >> in
>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>
> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
> comments?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
> > changes.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
> >>
> >> Couple of questions:
> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
> >> any case.
> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around
> >> in
> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
comments?
--Yakov
2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
> changes.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>
>> Couple of questions:
>> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
>> any case.
>> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around
>> in
>> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
changes.
--Yakov
2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
> Guys,
>
> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>
> Couple of questions:
> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
> any case.
> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around in
> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>.
Guys,
I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
Couple of questions:
- I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
any case.
- readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around in
the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, I reviewed the code and committed it to ignite-642 branch (after some
minor style changes + I added new tests to suites).
Alex G & Sam can you please review (see diff with our current master) and
provide comments here. I think we are very close to finish with this issue.
Thanks for contributing this!
--Yakov
2016-04-11 18:22 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
>>> can you please do the review again?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>>> vladisavj@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>>> >>
>>> >> --Yakov
>>> >>
>>> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi Yakov,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>>> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is
>>> needed.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>>> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>>> >> > release).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best regrads,
>>> >> > Vladisav
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>>> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks!
>>> >> > > --
>>> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>>> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
>>> >> > > www.gridgain.com
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>>> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
>>> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > --Yakov
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>>> >> ticket
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > > >> myself.
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> --Yakov
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>>> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>> Hi,
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>>> >> next
>>> >> > > >>> release.
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> Best regards,
>>> >> > > >>> Vladisav
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> > Folks,
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
>>> has
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > same
>>> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology
>>> cannot be
>>> >> > > changed
>>> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
>>> lock is
>>> >> > > held.
>>> >> > > >>> The
>>> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the
>>> lock()
>>> >> issue
>>> >> > > >>> can be
>>> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way
>>> IgniteSemaphore
>>> >> > > currently
>>> >> > > >>> > works.
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>>> >> message,
>>> >> > my
>>> >> > > >>> first
>>> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>>> >> which
>>> >> > led
>>> >> > > >>> to
>>> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
>>> please
>>> >> > > >>> re-test
>>> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>>> >> > > structures?
>>> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
>>> when
>>> >> > I'm
>>> >> > > >>> done
>>> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow.
--Yakov
2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
>> can you please do the review again?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>> >>
>> >> --Yakov
>> >>
>> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Yakov,
>> >> >
>> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is
>> needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>> >> > release).
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regrads,
>> >> > Vladisav
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
>> >> > > www.gridgain.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
>> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --Yakov
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>> >> ticket
>> >> > to
>> >> > > >> myself.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --Yakov
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>> Hi,
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>> >> next
>> >> > > >>> release.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Best regards,
>> >> > > >>> Vladisav
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> > Folks,
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
>> has
>> >> the
>> >> > > same
>> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot
>> be
>> >> > > changed
>> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
>> lock is
>> >> > > held.
>> >> > > >>> The
>> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
>> >> issue
>> >> > > >>> can be
>> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>> >> > > currently
>> >> > > >>> > works.
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>> >> message,
>> >> > my
>> >> > > >>> first
>> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>> >> which
>> >> > led
>> >> > > >>> to
>> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
>> please
>> >> > > >>> re-test
>> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>> >> > > structures?
>> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
>> when
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > > >>> done
>> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
--Yakov
2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Yakov,
>
> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
> can you please do the review again?
>
> Thanks!
> Vladisav
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Hi Yakov,
> >> >
> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
> >> >
> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> >> > release).
> >> >
> >> > Best regrads,
> >> > Vladisav
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > --
> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
> >> > > www.gridgain.com
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --Yakov
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
> >> ticket
> >> > to
> >> > > >> myself.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --Yakov
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Hi,
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
> >> next
> >> > > >>> release.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>> Vladisav
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> > Folks,
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot
> be
> >> > > changed
> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock
> is
> >> > > held.
> >> > > >>> The
> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
> >> issue
> >> > > >>> can be
> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> >> > > currently
> >> > > >>> > works.
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
> >> message,
> >> > my
> >> > > >>> first
> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
> >> which
> >> > led
> >> > > >>> to
> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
> please
> >> > > >>> re-test
> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> >> > > structures?
> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
> when
> >> > I'm
> >> > > >>> done
> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
can you please do the review again?
Thanks!
Vladisav
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Yakov,
>> >
>> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>> >
>> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>> > release).
>> >
>> > Best regrads,
>> > Vladisav
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > --
>> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> > > *GridGain Systems*
>> > > www.gridgain.com
>> > >
>> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>> > > >
>> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>> > > >
>> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>> optimized-classnames.properties.
>> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --Yakov
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>> ticket
>> > to
>> > > >> myself.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Yakov
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>> next
>> > > >>> release.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Best regards,
>> > > >>> Vladisav
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > Folks,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>> > > changed
>> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>> > > held.
>> > > >>> The
>> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
>> issue
>> > > >>> can be
>> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>> > > currently
>> > > >>> > works.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>> message,
>> > my
>> > > >>> first
>> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>> which
>> > led
>> > > >>> to
>> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>> > > >>> re-test
>> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>> > > structures?
>> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
>> > I'm
>> > > >>> done
>> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
> > Hi Yakov,
> >
> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
> >
> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> > release).
> >
> > Best regrads,
> > Vladisav
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > --
> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > > *GridGain Systems*
> > > www.gridgain.com
> > >
> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > > >
> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > > >
> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
> optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --Yakov
> > > >
> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> > to
> > > >> myself.
> > > >>
> > > >> --Yakov
> > > >>
> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > > >>> release.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best regards,
> > > >>> Vladisav
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > Folks,
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
> the
> > > same
> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > > changed
> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > > held.
> > > >>> The
> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
> issue
> > > >>> can be
> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > > currently
> > > >>> > works.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
> message,
> > my
> > > >>> first
> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> > led
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > > >>> re-test
> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > > structures?
> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> > I'm
> > > >>> done
> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
--Yakov
2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Yakov,
>
> yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>
> Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> release).
>
> Best regrads,
> Vladisav
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >
> > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >
> > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> > >> myself.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Vladisav
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Folks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > same
> > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > changed
> > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > held.
> > >>> The
> > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > currently
> > >>> > works.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> > >>> first
> > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> > >>> to
> > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>> re-test
> > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>> done
> > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@gridgain.com>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Yakov,
>
> yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>
> Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> release).
>
This would be awesome :)
>
> Best regrads,
> Vladisav
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >
> > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >
> > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> > >> myself.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Vladisav
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Folks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > same
> > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > changed
> > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > held.
> > >>> The
> > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > currently
> > >>> > works.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> > >>> first
> > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> > >>> to
> > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>> re-test
> > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>> done
> > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Dmitriy Setrakyan <ds...@gridgain.com>.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Yakov,
>
> yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>
> Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> release).
>
This would be awesome :)
>
> Best regrads,
> Vladisav
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >
> > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >
> > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> > >> myself.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Vladisav
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Folks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > same
> > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > changed
> > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > held.
> > >>> The
> > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > currently
> > >>> > works.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> > >>> first
> > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> > >>> to
> > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>> re-test
> > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>> done
> > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
--Yakov
2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Hi Yakov,
>
> yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>
> Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> release).
>
> Best regrads,
> Vladisav
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >
> > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >
> > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> > >> myself.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Vladisav
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Folks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> > same
> > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > changed
> > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> > held.
> > >>> The
> > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > currently
> > >>> > works.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> > >>> first
> > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> > >>> to
> > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>> re-test
> > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>> done
> > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Hi Yakov,
yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
release).
Best regrads,
Vladisav
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
wrote:
> Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> *GridGain Systems*
> www.gridgain.com
>
> 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
> > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >
> > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >
> > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > Can you please respond in ticket?
> >
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
> >> myself.
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> >>> release.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Vladisav
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Folks,
> >>> >
> >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the
> same
> >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> changed
> >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
> held.
> >>> The
> >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
> >>> can be
> >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> currently
> >>> > works.
> >>> >
> >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
> >>> first
> >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
> >>> to
> >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> >>> re-test
> >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> structures?
> >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
> >>> done
> >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>.
Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
Thanks!
--
Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
*GridGain Systems*
www.gridgain.com
2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>
> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>
> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> Can you please respond in ticket?
>
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>> myself.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Folks,
>>> >
>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same
>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed
>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held.
>>> The
>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>> can be
>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently
>>> > works.
>>> >
>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>> first
>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>> to
>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>> re-test
>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>> done
>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>.
Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
Thanks!
--
Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
*GridGain Systems*
www.gridgain.com
2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>
> I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>
> Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> Can you please respond in ticket?
>
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket to
>> myself.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Folks,
>>> >
>>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has the same
>>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be changed
>>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is held.
>>> The
>>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock() issue
>>> can be
>>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore currently
>>> > works.
>>> >
>>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message, my
>>> first
>>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which led
>>> to
>>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>>> re-test
>>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data structures?
>>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when I'm
>>> done
>>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>